¶1concurring specially.
¶2I agree with Judge Blackburn that Brooks v. Young, 220 Ga. App. 47 (467 SE2d 230) (1996), should be overruled to the extent it holds that there can be no valid service of an original action outside the statute of limitation. This was an overbroad statement of the law, given the special circumstances present in Brooks. Not only was Brooks a minor at the time of suit and therefore protected by the “strict compliance” required in serving a minor, id. at 48, but the suit against her had been pending for over a year before expiration of the statute of limitation. Plaintiff failed to ascertain Brooks’s legal status or properly serve her for over one year after suit commenced. Brookstherefore involved not only the general rule that the five-day period for service under OCGA § 9-11-4 (c) is not absolute, Childs v. Catlin, 134 Ga. App. 778 (216 SE2d 360) (1975), but also the corresponding requirement that a plaintiff show reasonable and diligent efforts to perfect service outside the five-day period. Devoe v. Callis, 212 Ga. App. 618, 620 (442 SE2d 765) (1994). A plaintiff’s obligation to ascertain the correct facts necessary for service of a defendant does not arise only upon expiration of the statute of limitation. Id. at 619. To the extent, however, that any language in the opinion appeared to state as a general proposition that there can be no valid service of an original action outside the statute of limitation, it was incorrect and should be overruled.